5 because there is evidently a patrimonial content in the right this article protects. 15. In point of fact, Article 13(3) of the Convention textually grants protection to the assets that are, in certain circumstances, essential for materializing freedom of expression; among such assets, the article indicates the “radio broadcasting frequencies, or equipment used in the dissemination of information,” as are the assets used by a media outlet such as those of RCTV in this specific case. The purpose of this Convention provision is to safeguard the ownership of such fixtures and equipment and to protect them from arbitrary interference. In addition, the ownership of such assets cannot be exercised absolutely, but must be guided by the standards imposed by Article 21 of the American Convention. 16. Hence, in this specific case, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice deprived RCTV of the “use and enjoyment” of a large part of its assets 21 by “unspecified interim measures” with no time limit;22 which, de facto, resulted in a seizure of property without compensation and in an indirect restriction of the exercise of freedom of expression that the victims executed through the media outlet. It is evident that the loss of the company’s property, which enabled the victims in this case to carry out their communication task, was a fact that was in addition to the arbitrary non-renewal of the concession. This unlawful act was used to justify the adoption of the interim measures that resulted in the said property being transferred to the new concessionaire, so that the new company could begin operating because “it did not have the infrastructure required to transmit nationwide.” In addition, the harm to the value of the shares – which are owned by the shareholders, victims in this case – is evident, owing to the closure of RCTV; the determination of the quantum of the share depreciation is a different matter. 17. Third, I differ from the majority opinion that the violation of the guarantees of independence and impartiality contained in Article 8(1) in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention (eleventh and twelfth operative paragraphs of the judgment) was not proved. I consider that, having declared and proved in this case the existence of a “misuse of power,” because the State used a power permitted to it in order to “align” the media outlet’s editorial line with the government, the logical and coherent consequence would have been to also declare that the judicial guarantees of independence and impartiality established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention had been violated. This is because the undeclared purpose of the decisions taken in the administrative proceedings and, particularly, by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, when deciding, ex officio, the “unspecified interim measures,” denotes, when taken as a whole, that they contributed to real intention and undeclared purpose consisting in silencing the voices that were critical of the government by closing down RCTV. In addition, this analysis should necessarily have been linked to the “context” proved by the Inter-American Court; that is, because, “in the instant case, the Court considered proved, ‘the ‘environment of intimidation’ fostered by statements of senior State officials against independent media outlets and ‘an official discourse discrediting the professionalism of journalists.’”23 18. Based on the foregoing, this opinion is divided into the following sections: I. The importance of audiovisual media in democratic societies (paras. 19-31). II. The decision that the right to freedom of expression of some victims (shareholders) was not violated (paras. 32-62). III. The violation of the right to property in relation to freedom of expression (paras. 63-125); IV. The violation of the guarantees of independence and impartiality (paras. 126High frequency waves, teleports, transmitters, auxiliary television equipment, auxiliary power and climate control equipment, towers, antennas, broadcasting booths, station booths, perimeter fencing, and electrical connections. 21 22 Regarding these “unspecified interim measures,” see supra footnote 16 of this opinion. 23 Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 61.